Clinton: "reason to hope" Boeing to win Russia bid

[jeffbr]

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59C2SS20091013

Clinton: "reason to hope" Boeing to win Russia bid

MOSCOW (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday aircraft maker Boeing could potentially win a contract from Russian Airlines to supply planes the state-run airline plans to buy in the next few years.

"We have reason to hope," Clinton told reporters, when asked whether she had received any signals from Russian officials that the contract would go to Boeing.

Clinton was speaking at a Boeing design center in Moscow.

Russian Airlines, known locally as Rosavia, is being created by the state to absorb several carriers crippled last year by the financial crisis and high fuel prices. It will also compete with Russia's flagship carrier, Aeroflot.

Rosavia said in August it had solicited offers from Boeing and rival aircraft manufacturer Airbus for the 65 narrowbody planes it plans to buy over the next few years.

[denem]

1. Better not be Dreamliners,

... Boeing's nightmare.

[thunder rising]

2. Dreamliner is a mid-sized, wide-body. If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

[denem]

5. The 787 still hasn't had a test flight. It was orginally scheduled for Sept 2007,

now it's 'by the end of the year'. Not that the A380 was any better, but the point is you can't supply planes you can't build.

[thunder rising]

6. And this is relevant how? The purchase is for NARROW BODY planes.

[denem]

8. My reference to Dreamliners was lighthearted.

Dream/nightmare, not that serious. Like saying the Fords better not be Edsels.

[thunder rising]

7. Boeing knows the meaning of "better to get it right than get it out the door"

[denem]

10. Agreed ++

[Statistical]

13. Yeah but the 21 delays just so far is getting to the point of ridiculous.

Airbus is stunned for from the failure of A380. Airline have a rapidly aging fleet and are looking to buy from someone. Now is the chance for Boeing to lock in profits, sales, and jobs for next decade.

All they need to do is get this project working. If they continue to flounder and Airbus gets its act together and beats them to the knockout punch well Boeing and Boeing suppliers will bleed jobs for a long long time.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

23. Failure?

On what basis is the A380 a failure?

Given the airports of the world aren't getting any larger and people aren't flying any less it has a bright future ahead of it - while the 787 seems doomed to be little more than a cautionary tale on outsourcing.

And if anyone is stunned for the moment it is Boeing, who is being attacked from all sides. The Airbus A330 is still kicking their ass as the 787 program flirts with total collapse, the Airbus A350 is going to do the same to the 777 which is their cash cow and Bombardier is about to attack the 737 market where Boeing has indicated they aren't even looking at a replacement for atleast another decade.

Airbus makes airplanes, Boeing makes powerpoints.

[Statistical]

25. A380 contracted units has been the most dismal launch of an aircraft to date.

Boeing has contracts for 800 787s. Airbus despite pitching it longer has contracts for only 200 A380.

The A380 is heavier, requires changes to airports, takes longer to load, costs more per mile to operate, can't land on shorter runways, and has higher pricetag. That is before Airbus has to readjust the $ pricetag (for customers paying in dollars) higher if dollars stays depressed.

The 787 hasn't even flown yet and it is out contracting the 380 4:1.
So far most of Airbus orders are token amounts (6 planes, 12 planes, etc). Even France & British Airways have only contracted for 12. The one shining jewel for the A380 is Emirates ariline which contracted for 58 planes and is rapidly expanding. The loss of that airline is a stinging blow for Boeing.

Now the ball is in Boeing court if they fuck this up they have nobody to blame but themselves but if they make it work that is thousands of planes over next 30 years and the A380 becomes a footnote in aviation history. Most airlines aren't going to "split fleet" and have both 787 and A380 it just adds costs, complexity, and overhead. If 787 outsells the A380 by large margin then the unit cost drops while the unit cost rises for A380 and it creates a self fulfilling cycle.

The A380 is selling so well they lined up contracts for a "WHOLE" 2 planes in 2009, that comes after a "stellar" 9 planes in 2008.
Now Boeing may managed to pull defeat from the jaws of victory but if airlines go with A380 it will be because their first choice didn't work out.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

26. The order book for the 787 is a crushing liability for Boeing and that title goes to the 767-400

Supposed to sink the mighty A330-200 and Boeing sold a total of 37 of them to two airlines.

Hey, how many 747-8's has Boeing sold this year (orders, not options) why I do believe it is ZERO. How many did they sell in 2008? two to two different unidentified customers.

Boeing sold a plane they can't deliver, each order then becomes a liability with crushing penalties as each delivery date passes - Boeing may never turn a profit on the 787 (should it actually fly at some point) for no other reason that penalties cascading into the distant future.

The A380 is intended to link high volume yet slot constrained airports which will only grow in the future as airport expansion has become impossible in any city of consequence thanks to reactionary environmentalism and NIMBY nonsense. Airlines will go with the A380 because slot constraints will limit passenger growth into the major airports of the world in the coming decade.

Airbus once again delivered the plane their customers ordered and it performed as advertised while Boeing is trying to build an airliner like a personal computer where a bunch of components from multiple low-cost subcontractors are delivered just in time, banged together and shipped.

[icnorth]

3. I know this if off topic

but according to John Boehner shouldn't Boeing be pronounced Baying? ;-)

[bridgit]

4. I hope they get the contract

[thunder rising]

9. Agreed. Olympics, Nobel Peace Prizes, and Airplane contracts awarded to Americans is a good thing

[Romulox]

11. So...our SOS is now personal shill for Boeing?

What happened to "free trade", Madame Secretary? :shrug:

[Statistical]

12. What isn't free about it?

Nobody is forcing Russia or strong arming them?

It still is a longshot but without free trade do you think Russian airliners would even be considering a non-Russian aircraft.

[Romulox]

14. Using the State Department as a sales force, for one.

Just another example of our government picking the winners and losers in this economy while preaching "free markets" to the rest of us. :shrug:

[Statistical]

16. The govt isn't picking a winner & loser in this instance.

They do that a lot and it is crap because often the "winner" they pick is less productive then the loser who goes bankrupt.

In this instance the state dept is lobbying because it is likely more influential than Boeing and jobs are a concern of the US State Dept. Likely there are political ramifications to the purchase. Still the entity picking the "winner" & "loser" is Russia Airways not US govt.

Don't you usually complain when US govt fails to open markets for US exports? Now they are and you are complaining again. You will never be happy until we have a complete isolationist system. Complete 100% embargo on all imports and exports.

[Romulox]

17. The government is putting its resources behind marketing a private company

That's putting the weight of the US government behind a private interest, which is an attempt to pick the winners and losers, even if the Russian have the final say. And for an administration that believes in "free trade" so much that it gave the majority of the Cash for Clunkers money to Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai. Why can't you "free marketeers" keep your ideology straight?

"You will never be happy until we have a complete isolationist system."

You know you're running out of rhetorical rope when you start arguing against points only you have made. I just wonder why Boeing deserves special treatment. After all, the Secretary isn't hawking Chevrolets in Russia. :hi:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

22. This is not new and not unique to the United States

Former French President Mitterrand would carry Airbus sales literature with him at state events, for many years he was their top salesman personally selling Airbus aircraft to various state owned airlines at the highest level. Bill Clinton personally delivered the sale of McDonnell Douglas MD-11's and MD-90's to Saudi Arabia. Nixon and Carter sold the Japanese DC-10's they didn't even fly in the name of trade deficit mitigation.

[Romulox]

28. Former French President Mitterand doesn't push neoliberal economics (when it's convenient)

:hi:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

29. of course he doesn't, good old Frank is dead

every government on EARTH does this and especially those with aircraft manufacturers as the sale of only a few planes can have a massive swing in the balance of trade.

[Romulox]

30. What part about "push neoliberal economics when its convenient" slipped by you?

The President and his Chicago Boys are all avowed "free marketeers". Until a crony needs a hand. Then they have government resources aplenty to devote to private profit.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

31. That is irrelevant

It is the policy of every country on earth with a functioning government to support their exporters, even if their exports are a few kilograms of turnips.

While Boeing under its current leadership is an enormous bag of shit, helping large exporters secure international sales is just common sense.

[Romulox]

34. LOL, it's "irrelevant" inasmuch as it is embarassing and hypocritical.

Keep trying to formulate a grand theory of crony capitalism; it's down to power and influence, full stop. Nothing more sophisticated than that.

"While Boeing under its current leadership is an enormous bag of shit, helping large exporters secure international sales is just common sense."

And yet completely incongruous with the Obama's administration's broader trade policy. (This admin did, after all, send the majority of the C4C monies to Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai in the name of "free trade" :hi: )

I noticed that you don't want to touch either the hypocrisy issue nor the Chicago cronyism connection. It's understandable, but not exactly credibility-enhancing to duck those issues.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

35. EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH DOES THIS!

it has nothing to do with Chicago OR Hypocrisy OR a global capitalist conspiracy or the carlyle group!

I have seen some stupid arguments on DU over the years, but this has to take the cake.

[Romulox]

36. Caps lock problem aside, "EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH" (OMG!) doesn't preach Chicago School

economics as its ideological guiding light (when its convenient), then engage in crass cronyism when that is convenient.

"it has nothing to do with Chicago OR Hypocrisy OR a global capitalist conspiracy or the carlyle group!"

LOL. It obviously has something to do with it. It's just difficult to synthesize with your pre-packaged argument. Economic nationalism is a bizarre argument to deploy in defense of an avowed globalist (who has worked diligently to funnel stimulus and bailout monies to foreign corporations, no less! :wow: )

"I have seen some stupid arguments on DU over the years, but this has to take the cake."

Indeed. "Everybody does it!" is an argument pulled out of the rhetorical quiver of a 4 year old. :silly:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

37. If Friedrich Hayek's corpse personally wants to promote US exports, good for him.

I still fail to see the outrage here,

[Romulox]

38. Except he's singing a significantly different tune to people in my neck of the woods.

"I still fail to see the outrage here,"

To be fair, upthread you said that you didn't see what this had to do with the Chicago School, or hypocrisy. So you aren't exactly an expert on the various issues at play. :hi:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

40. it has nothing to do with either - promoting US exports is sound policy

and what is this significantly different tune? What is your beef specifically?

I can't think of a single administration of the 20th Century that didn't do the same thing.

[Romulox]

41. LOL. I haven't been oblique. I'm speaking about the President's "free trade" stance,

and specifically his "free trade" stance as to the US auto industry, and even more specifically, as to his "Cash 4 Clunkers" program, which predominantly benefited foreign corporations.

It's hard to take you seriously if any of the foregoing is new material to you. :hi:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

42. You mean the guy who saved the domestic auto industry, from its self inflicted demise?

Obama! What an Asshole!

It isn't the fault of foreigners that the US automakers refuse to make a decent small car. Cash 4 Clunkers was a stupid idea, but that isn't why.

[Romulox]

43. LULz. I think there's an auto thread in LBN for you to troll.

Oh wait. :silly:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

44. oh thats right... the plight of Detroit is everyone in americas fault EXCEPT theirs

This administration saved your worthless industry from itself, show some appreciation.

[Romulox]

15. Where's the Boeing Co. headquartered, out of curiousity?

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. What the hell does this administration think it's doing...

promoting U.S. interests overseas?! ZOMG!

[Statistical]

19. Exactly! The horror. It might lead to more US jobs.

[Romulox]

21. What other private corps does the State Dept. negotiate on behalf of (and are they hqed in Chicago?)

:shrug:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

24. Many

It is called The Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs.

http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/cba/

The Office of Commercial and Business Affairs (CBA), led by Lorraine Hariton, plays a major role in coordinating trade and investment matters in support of U.S. firms doing business overseas.

I have worked closely with these people, even under Bush they were pretty good.

[Romulox]

27. "Many" isn't much of an answer. How about this: which other companies is SOS Clinton pushing

to Russia on this trip? :hi:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

32. I would imagine many,

[ddeclue]

20. I would tend to doubt it.. Russia has its own domestic aircraft industry

that is quite extensive and quite capable of supplying their own needs.

I really doubt they'd buy American if for no other reason than nationalistic pride.

If they bought outside of their own borders, I think their second choice would would be Airbus with American being their third choice.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

33. not really in this area,

Russia isn't presently producing a practical competitor to the 737 or A320. The Su-100 and Tu-334 are too small and the Tu-204 is too large.

[ddeclue]

39. They are certainly cabable of designing and building one

and I would assume they would do so before buying American or European.